Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ioreq-server: write protected range and forwarding

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>]

>>> On 03.09.14 at 23:53, <wei.ye@intel.com> wrote:
> +static int hvm_change_p2m_type_ioreq_server(struct domain *d, uint16_t set,
> +                                            uint64_t start, uint64_t end)
> +{
> +    int rc = -EINVAL;
> +    uint64_t gpfn_s, gpfn_e, gpfn;
> +    p2m_type_t ot, nt;
> +
> +    if ( set )
> +    {
> +        ot = p2m_ram_rw;
> +        nt = p2m_mmio_write_dm;
> +    }
> +    else
> +    {
> +        ot = p2m_mmio_write_dm;
> +        nt = p2m_ram_rw;
> +    }
> +
> +    gpfn_s = start >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> +    gpfn_e = end >> PAGE_SHIFT;

Considering that the first really ought to be PFN_DOWN() - is the latter
really correct? I'd rather expect that to be PFN_UP()...

> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/domain.h
> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/domain.h
> @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ struct hvm_ioreq_vcpu {
>      evtchn_port_t    ioreq_evtchn;
>  };
>  
> -#define NR_IO_RANGE_TYPES (HVMOP_IO_RANGE_PCI + 1)
> +#define NR_IO_RANGE_TYPES (HVMOP_IO_RANGE_WP + 1)
>  #define MAX_NR_IO_RANGES  256

So in the end you didn't even find it necessary to bump the limit
on the number of ranges per domain? Iirc that was your major
objection against using existing infrastructure.

Jan